MANCHESTER - 9
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shed - Amen to that excellent post.
Skip, you've mentioned twice now that LHR has been closed to new entrants since 1977. I'm puzzled by this as how come those cheeky Chinese carriers are now operating, not to mention a few airlines from the Middle East for example?
Isn't it true that when airlines fold or give up slots, those slots become available and slots are traded? Haven't BA effectively cut out some domestic routes and juggled slot pairs to enable them to expand long haul services? Yes, LHR may be constrained overall but there has been scope within the system to allow new airlines to fly and existing carriers to swap less profitable services for more lucrative routes. The number of new services started from LHR in recent years is remarkable considering it's 'full'.
Personally, I prefer to see MAN grow in its own right as a Gateway to the North rather than simply rely on extra traffic because LHR is 'full', which may prove only a temporary benefit as LGW has found.
Skip, you've mentioned twice now that LHR has been closed to new entrants since 1977. I'm puzzled by this as how come those cheeky Chinese carriers are now operating, not to mention a few airlines from the Middle East for example?
Isn't it true that when airlines fold or give up slots, those slots become available and slots are traded? Haven't BA effectively cut out some domestic routes and juggled slot pairs to enable them to expand long haul services? Yes, LHR may be constrained overall but there has been scope within the system to allow new airlines to fly and existing carriers to swap less profitable services for more lucrative routes. The number of new services started from LHR in recent years is remarkable considering it's 'full'.
Personally, I prefer to see MAN grow in its own right as a Gateway to the North rather than simply rely on extra traffic because LHR is 'full', which may prove only a temporary benefit as LGW has found.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Basil, thanks for the link to the August traffic report in the M.E.N.
Near the end of that article there is a link to another Ryanair story which originally included an alleged quote indicating many of the airline's new planes on order would be based at MAN over the next 5 years. I nearly choked in disbelief and I see that paragraph has now been deleted. The 300,000 extra pax a year mentioned appears to relate to the new Eindhoven and Shannon services.
It sounds a lot, but a based 738 with 189 seats doing. say. a fairly modest 18 rotations a week with a few longer sectors for 50 weeks provides 340,000 seats. On the other hand, a 763 daily service to the States has less than half that, but both are extremely important.
Near the end of that article there is a link to another Ryanair story which originally included an alleged quote indicating many of the airline's new planes on order would be based at MAN over the next 5 years. I nearly choked in disbelief and I see that paragraph has now been deleted. The 300,000 extra pax a year mentioned appears to relate to the new Eindhoven and Shannon services.
It sounds a lot, but a based 738 with 189 seats doing. say. a fairly modest 18 rotations a week with a few longer sectors for 50 weeks provides 340,000 seats. On the other hand, a 763 daily service to the States has less than half that, but both are extremely important.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: MAN
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MANFOD - my own view is that FR and EZY are the best bets by far for future growth in the LCC sector. They have massive presence Europe-wide and can attract business at both ends of the route.
If growth by FR and EZY is at the expense of Monarch and Jet2 then so be it. Monarch are in some trouble, and I really can't see that Jet2's strategy of relying on availability of ancient aircraft is a sustainable one for the long term. The history of airlines in the UK is littered with the carcasses of airlines that started in that way before eventually having to move on to new aircraft and then going belly up.
MAN has suffered in recent years from its misguided decision to freeze out FR and EZY in the first place, and then having to pick up the pieces by going after second tier carriers such as bmibaby and (dare I say it) Jet2.
Better to go with the market leaders, even if it's a few years later than it should have been. Let's focus on growing FR and EZY, and clawing back more of the traffic that was lost to LPL and elsewhere.
If growth by FR and EZY is at the expense of Monarch and Jet2 then so be it. Monarch are in some trouble, and I really can't see that Jet2's strategy of relying on availability of ancient aircraft is a sustainable one for the long term. The history of airlines in the UK is littered with the carcasses of airlines that started in that way before eventually having to move on to new aircraft and then going belly up.
MAN has suffered in recent years from its misguided decision to freeze out FR and EZY in the first place, and then having to pick up the pieces by going after second tier carriers such as bmibaby and (dare I say it) Jet2.
Better to go with the market leaders, even if it's a few years later than it should have been. Let's focus on growing FR and EZY, and clawing back more of the traffic that was lost to LPL and elsewhere.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Better to go with the market leaders, even if it's a few years later than it should have been. Let's focus on growing FR and EZY, and clawing back more of the traffic that was lost to LPL and elsewhere.
Basically what you are saying here is lets force routes from LPL and LBA to MAN and sod the extra people who will have to travel from Liverpool and Leeds
Basically what you are saying here is lets force routes from LPL and LBA to MAN and sod the extra people who will have to travel from Liverpool and Leeds
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: MAN
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vinnym - no, if those who live in the catchment areas of LPL and LBA can support flights from their local airports then great.
But if you look at the CAA stats there are a lot of people who live close to MAN but who fly from LPL because a wider range of LCC destinations have historically been available there. That's not really a sensible situation, and one that only arose because previous management at MAN turned up its nose at the likes of FR and EZY.
But if you look at the CAA stats there are a lot of people who live close to MAN but who fly from LPL because a wider range of LCC destinations have historically been available there. That's not really a sensible situation, and one that only arose because previous management at MAN turned up its nose at the likes of FR and EZY.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would suggest that there are a lot more people from the LPL and LBA catchments areas who travel to MAN than vice versa, just seems that some people want all traffic to go through MAN and never mind if people are forced to travel and clog up out already manic motorways
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: MAN
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, you're right of course. Unfortunately it's a fact of life in the air transport business that size matters. Big airports have a gravitational effect that does tend to squeeze out the smaller ones. But that's airline economics.
What I was getting at was the 800,000 annual pax whose ground origin was in the Gtr Manchester area but who used LPL, in the last CAA survey (dates from 2010 unfortunately). Not to mention the 350,000 from Yorkshire and Humberside who used LPL and who, by rights, ought to be using LBA or DSA or EMA or MAN before driving all the way to LPL. And there's also chunky numbers from the West Midlands and East Midlands regions using LPL.
It just goes to show how much of a first mover advantage LPL gained against the stodgier airports, in realising the potential of the LCCs. However, this was at considerable financial cost and it now seems that the only way is down for LPL. And it's interesting to see the quote in the MEN article about promoting MAN's LCC links in markets such as Merseyside, St Helens, Warrington and Wigan, well into "enemy territory".
What I was getting at was the 800,000 annual pax whose ground origin was in the Gtr Manchester area but who used LPL, in the last CAA survey (dates from 2010 unfortunately). Not to mention the 350,000 from Yorkshire and Humberside who used LPL and who, by rights, ought to be using LBA or DSA or EMA or MAN before driving all the way to LPL. And there's also chunky numbers from the West Midlands and East Midlands regions using LPL.
It just goes to show how much of a first mover advantage LPL gained against the stodgier airports, in realising the potential of the LCCs. However, this was at considerable financial cost and it now seems that the only way is down for LPL. And it's interesting to see the quote in the MEN article about promoting MAN's LCC links in markets such as Merseyside, St Helens, Warrington and Wigan, well into "enemy territory".
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll try and respond without reference to the introduction of emotive language or is there a need to respond in this manner as your arguments fail to hold water ?
Quote:
On that basis if there is a demand to trade with "The UK" it has to go somewhere, if Manchester benefits so be it. Some will, however many more will use overseas hubs like Dubai, Doha (lovely country, they hate gays and non muslims, huge supporters of ISIS but oooosh they fly to MAN twice daily on a state sponsored airline.
As suggested, banning airlines on the basis of values would leave not only Manchester bereft but also LHR. It might not sit well, it might be unpalatable but if you are unable to base argument on business decisions please lets not start introducing moral arguments.
Quote:
MAN's long haul portfolio is bouncing back but it's not growing dramatically in the way you seem to think it ought to as LHR remains constrained and has done so since initial closure to new entrants in 1977.
CONSTRAINED since 1977, are you actually being serious ?
Good grief, LHR was doing circa 27 million passengers in 1977 !
Its only trebled to 70+m since then, as for new entrants, I haven't got time to list them ......
Quote:
Lets be clear my interest is Manchester, The NWest and The North in that order, And as is blatantly clear, the rest of the country can go and hang so long as your local area is blessed? And you wonder why a national integrated transport policy is so hard to manage?
I suggested my main interest is Manchester, The NWest and The North, it is a complete twist of wording to indicate that I suggested that "the rest the country can hang".
But what of Integrated transport policy, many thanks for introducing that one, a very timely reminder.
Would this be the one that spends £2700 per head of population within the M25, £134 per head in the NWest and wait for it, £5 per head in the North East.
My Goodness, Westminster must think they are are still using "wattle and daub" on Tyneside !
#Allinittogther
....and please don't throw back that "its the Capital", whilst that level of spend might be justified the disparity most certainly isn't !
Quote:
if we don't do this or don't do that they will go somewhere in Europe.
They will come to MAN, but via a European gateway, exporting the jobs to Europe and benefiting Lufthansa, Swiss, Air France / KLM etc. Is that so hard to understand?
At the end of the day direct flights benefit both the passenger and indeed the airports at either end of the journey. When EK came along that effected BA,AF,KL, etc
When Cathay start that in itself may effect EK, its called business....!
Quote:
On that basis if there is a demand to trade with "The UK" it has to go somewhere, if Manchester benefits so be it. Some will, however many more will use overseas hubs like Dubai, Doha (lovely country, they hate gays and non muslims, huge supporters of ISIS but oooosh they fly to MAN twice daily on a state sponsored airline.
As suggested, banning airlines on the basis of values would leave not only Manchester bereft but also LHR. It might not sit well, it might be unpalatable but if you are unable to base argument on business decisions please lets not start introducing moral arguments.
Quote:
MAN's long haul portfolio is bouncing back but it's not growing dramatically in the way you seem to think it ought to as LHR remains constrained and has done so since initial closure to new entrants in 1977.
CONSTRAINED since 1977, are you actually being serious ?
Good grief, LHR was doing circa 27 million passengers in 1977 !
Its only trebled to 70+m since then, as for new entrants, I haven't got time to list them ......
Quote:
Lets be clear my interest is Manchester, The NWest and The North in that order, And as is blatantly clear, the rest of the country can go and hang so long as your local area is blessed? And you wonder why a national integrated transport policy is so hard to manage?
I suggested my main interest is Manchester, The NWest and The North, it is a complete twist of wording to indicate that I suggested that "the rest the country can hang".
But what of Integrated transport policy, many thanks for introducing that one, a very timely reminder.
Would this be the one that spends £2700 per head of population within the M25, £134 per head in the NWest and wait for it, £5 per head in the North East.
My Goodness, Westminster must think they are are still using "wattle and daub" on Tyneside !
#Allinittogther
....and please don't throw back that "its the Capital", whilst that level of spend might be justified the disparity most certainly isn't !
Quote:
if we don't do this or don't do that they will go somewhere in Europe.
They will come to MAN, but via a European gateway, exporting the jobs to Europe and benefiting Lufthansa, Swiss, Air France / KLM etc. Is that so hard to understand?
At the end of the day direct flights benefit both the passenger and indeed the airports at either end of the journey. When EK came along that effected BA,AF,KL, etc
When Cathay start that in itself may effect EK, its called business....!
Last edited by Bagso; 11th Sep 2014 at 06:27.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 1977 closure to new entrants at LHR was rescinded in 1991-92 ish, LHR was full and closed to new traffic for 14 years which is partly why LGW used to have a major long haul operation from CX, NZ, KE, AA, DL, CO etc etc. Point being MAN only grew in local terms as a gateway to the North and Scotland at the expense of GLA/EDI/PIK having nonsensical traffic distribution rules. MAN made gains at regional expense, not national in those years. Partly as a result of overly restrictive bilaterals, AA and SQ had to move mountains to serve MAN.
London has a massively distorting effect but it does rather rake in the taxes and the workers, not sure what's to be done there. Regionalism might make a comeback if, as I hope, Scotland sobers up before the walk of shame......
(Scottish and about to become a foreigner in my own country......)
Bagso LHR has been constrained for years with market forces forcing out regional connectivity in favour of international p2p, 5 x EK A380 to DXB is worth more than 5 x SH6 to GCI. You should look up what constrained means btw. Also, I did not suggest banning anyone, I make the point that perhaps Qatar is not a beacon of liberty, human rights and sexual equality. Hence they're never going to be up there with my favourite businesses.
Btw, what part of the business world employs you Bagso since you're now keen to tell me how business works? Is it social media as per your recent focus perhaps?
London has a massively distorting effect but it does rather rake in the taxes and the workers, not sure what's to be done there. Regionalism might make a comeback if, as I hope, Scotland sobers up before the walk of shame......
(Scottish and about to become a foreigner in my own country......)
Bagso LHR has been constrained for years with market forces forcing out regional connectivity in favour of international p2p, 5 x EK A380 to DXB is worth more than 5 x SH6 to GCI. You should look up what constrained means btw. Also, I did not suggest banning anyone, I make the point that perhaps Qatar is not a beacon of liberty, human rights and sexual equality. Hence they're never going to be up there with my favourite businesses.
Btw, what part of the business world employs you Bagso since you're now keen to tell me how business works? Is it social media as per your recent focus perhaps?
Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 10th Sep 2014 at 19:52.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: MAN
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote
"At the end of the day direct flights benefit both the passenger and indeed the airports at either end of the journey. When EK came along that effected BA,AF,KL, etc"
Bagso, I'm not sure you've picked the best example of a 'direct flight'. Over 80% of EK's pax ex-MAN are making onward connections - similar proportions as EY and QR. There really isn't much difference between a DXB service and one to LHR, FRA, CDG or AMS. They're all ways of funnelling pax through a hub, whether it's BA's hub or EK's or LH's or AF's or whoever's. You still have to change planes somewhere, and although I'm the first to agree that BA's transfer operation at Heathrow is poor, I'd rather transfer there than at FRA, CDG, DXB, AUH or pretty much any US gateway. Not for chauvinistic reasons, just that those airports offer a very grim experience. AMS can be ok but not if you have hold baggage - its misconnect stats are far worse than LHR ever was, but of course KL try to conceal those stats. ZRH and MUC are good, but both LX and LH have reduced their frequencies ex-MAN so they are no longer very practical connecting options.
Arguably the rise of EK, EY etc has put back the development of true 'direct' services from MAN, as it's difficult to compete with the hub and spoke model (especially where those airlines have grown on the back of easy access to capital and very patient shareholders).
But the great thing about MAN is that customers have a genuine choice, with a wide range of point to point services and great frequencies to a lot of hubs. You pays your money and you takes your choice, and I agree that choice should not be based on simple nationalistic reasons.
"At the end of the day direct flights benefit both the passenger and indeed the airports at either end of the journey. When EK came along that effected BA,AF,KL, etc"
Bagso, I'm not sure you've picked the best example of a 'direct flight'. Over 80% of EK's pax ex-MAN are making onward connections - similar proportions as EY and QR. There really isn't much difference between a DXB service and one to LHR, FRA, CDG or AMS. They're all ways of funnelling pax through a hub, whether it's BA's hub or EK's or LH's or AF's or whoever's. You still have to change planes somewhere, and although I'm the first to agree that BA's transfer operation at Heathrow is poor, I'd rather transfer there than at FRA, CDG, DXB, AUH or pretty much any US gateway. Not for chauvinistic reasons, just that those airports offer a very grim experience. AMS can be ok but not if you have hold baggage - its misconnect stats are far worse than LHR ever was, but of course KL try to conceal those stats. ZRH and MUC are good, but both LX and LH have reduced their frequencies ex-MAN so they are no longer very practical connecting options.
Arguably the rise of EK, EY etc has put back the development of true 'direct' services from MAN, as it's difficult to compete with the hub and spoke model (especially where those airlines have grown on the back of easy access to capital and very patient shareholders).
But the great thing about MAN is that customers have a genuine choice, with a wide range of point to point services and great frequencies to a lot of hubs. You pays your money and you takes your choice, and I agree that choice should not be based on simple nationalistic reasons.
Last edited by BasilBush; 10th Sep 2014 at 20:22.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a slight aside no finer example than the constant outpouring of support from @Telegraph who even this week ran the headline in their business column
" 6 out of 10 MPs support expansion at Heathrow,
This utterly misleading headline suggested a vast majority of our MPs support this, quite frankly its utter BULL@@@@
When you read the detail only 140 MPs were actually questioned , the 6 out of 10 figure relates to them.
how about an equally misleading line therefore ...
40% of MPs reject Heathrow ?
" 6 out of 10 MPs support expansion at Heathrow,
This utterly misleading headline suggested a vast majority of our MPs support this, quite frankly its utter BULL@@@@
When you read the detail only 140 MPs were actually questioned , the 6 out of 10 figure relates to them.
how about an equally misleading line therefore ...
40% of MPs reject Heathrow ?
Agree that it’s bull, probably more than 60% of MPs support Heathrow expansion. Of course it all depends which MPs are asked.
Discount the usual suspects: Caroline Lucas, Zac Goldsmith, Boris (soon), all the Libdems and a handful of Labour and Conservative.
Most MPs away from London want the expansion so that their areas can once again be linked to Heathrow to connect to the world, in order to aid inward investment, the export drive and regeneration, and have easy access to the many firms with HQs around Heathrow.
For what its worth "a hub" should have been been built in my view out towards the M40 corridor somewhere near the old USAF airfield at Croughton. A large 4 runway airport, where there is room to expand, where the current workforce can get to etc.
Like all the other remote locations suggested - too far out.
On that basis if there is a demand to trade with "The UK" it has to go somewhere, if Manchester benefits so be it. I'm sure you will argue again maybe its false demand based on an inability to get into LHR, maybe it is, I would argue that we have significant capacity in TheNorth that will support a sizeable amount of demand that originates up here.
No, carriers that can’t get LHR slots go to AMS, CDG, FRA, the only other airports with sufficient connectivity and premium pax (they create carriers’ profits). Consequently, LHR expansion is no threat to MAN.
Usually it’s MAN and LHR, not MAN instead of LHR, particular with long haul.
Skip, you've mentioned twice now that LHR has been closed to new entrants since 1977. I'm puzzled by this as how come those cheeky Chinese carriers are now operating, not to mention a few airlines from the Middle East for example?
Isn't it true that when airlines fold or give up slots, those slots become available and slots are traded? Haven't BA effectively cut out some domestic routes and juggled slot pairs to enable them to expand long haul services? Yes, LHR may be constrained overall but there has been scope within the system to allow new airlines to fly and existing carriers to swap less profitable services for more lucrative routes. The number of new services started from LHR in recent years is remarkable considering it's 'full'.
Personally, I prefer to see MAN grow in its own right as a Gateway to the North rather than simply rely on extra traffic because LHR is 'full', which may prove only a temporary benefit as LGW has found.
Personally, I prefer to see MAN grow in its own right as a Gateway to the North rather than simply rely on extra traffic because LHR is 'full', which may prove only a temporary benefit as LGW has found.
LGW is the LHR "waiting room", MAN isn't. Of course MAN should “grow in its own right as a Gateway to the North”, there’s no question, but to expect it to be at LHR‘s expense is a fool‘s errand.
Both MAN and LHR, as well as other airports, need to be allowed to expand.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Manchester
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Possible new route from Aer Lingus as they expand Belfast City operations:
Trade E-Shots
And this article indicates that Ryanair has expanded flight schedule for 2015 with a couple of increases on popular routes:
Routes News - Ryanair reveals its summer 2015 schedule
Trade E-Shots
And this article indicates that Ryanair has expanded flight schedule for 2015 with a couple of increases on popular routes:
Routes News - Ryanair reveals its summer 2015 schedule
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Earth
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the end of the day direct flights benefit both the passenger and indeed the airports at either end of the journey. When EK came along that effected BA,AF,KL, etc
When Cathay start that in itself may effect EK, its called business....!
Probably poorly written my end Basil point I was trying to make was that BA AF KL fly to hubs but we're then overtaken by events with Emirates etc
Now the same may potentially happen to a smaller degree to part of the MEB traffic bound for ASIA re Cathay with some pax flying thru to Hong Kong and terminating with others using Hong Kong as a hub and connecting at the other end.
That maybe true to a degree for economy pax.
However, I've just booked MAN-HKG Business class with EK (again)
Firstly, the CX flights are not daily so restrictive, EK offer multiple daily connections. EK is over £1K cheaper than CX(as are QR, EY, VS, LX, LH).
CX very competitive for eco pax, but you have to go along way to beat the EK A380- to be honest I prefer a break of journey half way, than being stuck in a tube for 14 continuous hours.
My least favourite transfer hubs are LHR & FRA both equally horrible & chaotic. The easiest is MUC & ZRH- but there is only a 45 minute connection with HKG flights at ZRH. DOH & DXB the best for half way house stop with great business class facilities.
However, I've just booked MAN-HKG Business class with EK (again)
Firstly, the CX flights are not daily so restrictive, EK offer multiple daily connections. EK is over £1K cheaper than CX(as are QR, EY, VS, LX, LH).
CX very competitive for eco pax, but you have to go along way to beat the EK A380- to be honest I prefer a break of journey half way, than being stuck in a tube for 14 continuous hours.
My least favourite transfer hubs are LHR & FRA both equally horrible & chaotic. The easiest is MUC & ZRH- but there is only a 45 minute connection with HKG flights at ZRH. DOH & DXB the best for half way house stop with great business class facilities.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: MAN
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You make an excellent point about the importance of frequency, A Tis. Even a daily service is often not enough for long haul business travellers - an example close to my heart is the AA return flight from ORD which leaves far too early for an afternoon's work in Chicago. As a result I often have to connect through a hub, usually LHR.
That's why the focus can never entirely be on point-to-point direct routes - services via hubs will always have a big role for airports like MAN. And, as you point out, the resulting price competition is good for the consumer, even if it puts pressure on the direct services.
I share your views about ZRH and MUC as good hubs. I'm just dismayed that our services to those hubs have gone backwards in recent times. And I gave up using LX because their ground handler at MAN seems totally incapable of turning the plane round within the schedule, leading to many nail-biting connection issues at ZRH. It's not good for the heart!
That's why the focus can never entirely be on point-to-point direct routes - services via hubs will always have a big role for airports like MAN. And, as you point out, the resulting price competition is good for the consumer, even if it puts pressure on the direct services.
I share your views about ZRH and MUC as good hubs. I'm just dismayed that our services to those hubs have gone backwards in recent times. And I gave up using LX because their ground handler at MAN seems totally incapable of turning the plane round within the schedule, leading to many nail-biting connection issues at ZRH. It's not good for the heart!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr A Tis, Interesting that you found EK Business Class £1k cheaper than CX from MAN. I wonder how MAN's J class prices for CX compare with LHR's.
It's probably usual for direct non-stop flights to be more expensive than those involving a hub transfer but I would have thought how successful CX are in selling J class on the new MAN route will have a large bearing on whether the service is ultimately expanded to daily or, at the other extreme, fails. A bit of a chicken and egg situation in that respect. Apart from price, business folk may not use it if it's not daily but CX won't increase frequency until the route proves itself.
I'm sure I read some comments that J class was selling quite well but that was a few weeks ago.
It's probably usual for direct non-stop flights to be more expensive than those involving a hub transfer but I would have thought how successful CX are in selling J class on the new MAN route will have a large bearing on whether the service is ultimately expanded to daily or, at the other extreme, fails. A bit of a chicken and egg situation in that respect. Apart from price, business folk may not use it if it's not daily but CX won't increase frequency until the route proves itself.
I'm sure I read some comments that J class was selling quite well but that was a few weeks ago.
CX J is the same LHR or MAN, it's price is in line with BA.
EK, QR, EY. LX, LH, TK, AY, VS are all (usually) considerably cheaper.
However, frequency is important, with 3 departures a day EK s product is hard to beat.
I agree with Basil re frequency. When DL start the JFK- I hope they offer a different flight time to the others. Otherwise all 3 NYC departures will go at more of less the same time.
EK, QR, EY. LX, LH, TK, AY, VS are all (usually) considerably cheaper.
However, frequency is important, with 3 departures a day EK s product is hard to beat.
I agree with Basil re frequency. When DL start the JFK- I hope they offer a different flight time to the others. Otherwise all 3 NYC departures will go at more of less the same time.